DeHavelle and Level_Head

You may have noticed that I’m experimenting with a double-posting situation. So far, I’m not completely happy with the mechanics, but it’s working at least to an extent.

You may have also noticed my new signature line, and “new” name. I’ve been thinking about this for some time — some of my friends here have known for years that the moniker “Level_Head” is an anagram of DeHavelle — but it didn’t seem to be appropriate to mix “reveal a bit of the real me” when talking about Anthony Weiner.

In any event, it is still me. And I’m intending to remain on LiveJournal, where I have been writing for just under ten years. But I’m also desirous of taking advantage of certain WordPress features, so you’ll see some posts in both places.

I’m definitely open to suggestions on the mechanics of this, and of any tools you’ve found useful. I tried “Live+Press” and found it problematic, and the author of that WordPress plugin seems to have abandoned her project. The “LiveJournal CrossPoster Remix” is what I’m using at the moment.

Ideally, I’d like to post from Semagic and have it show up in both places. At the moment, I write in Semagic, post to WP, then edit it there which causes it to cross-post to LJ. Comments are welcome at both places. I have no intention of abandoning my LiveJournal friends.

Like this:

The graphs got stripped out of the comment when it posted at Chiefio’s site, so I copied it over here so that he could see the graphs.

His WordPress blog supports IMG tags, but apparently not all aspects of them. He wound up incorporating the graphs into the post.

So, the Serioso comment can be pulled now; I just never did.

Welcome, by the way!

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Pascvaks

Just a little confused at your blog entry (‘DeHavelle and Level_Head’) and the comment from Serioso with your followup to his comment re- mean sea level short-term down-turns. Don’t see the connection. Is this a coded site?;-)

That graph is certainly intriguing. It suggests that a large fraction of the surface (the green color) has a trend of about zero, meaning that the ocean there is about the same level as 1992:
Some portions, such as the cyan, have been trending down (at on the order of 3mm per year, suggesting something like a 60mm (6cm) drop in that roughly twenty years.

But there are large bulging irregular shapes, in the “shadow” of Southeast Asia, the Falklands, Madagascar, and a curious pattern of water “mountains” dotting most of the circumference of Antarctica. Other irregular shapes here and there; quite interesting.

The map’s global projection overstates the high latitudes, which affects our sense of proportion; it makes the red areas relatively larger. But some of these are adjacent to cyans or greens, and thus have been rising (this suggests) at a yearly rate of some 10mm or so per year — and thus would be around 200mm — 20cm — 8 inches — higher than the ocean area nearby. I wonder what is driving that.

I noticed, finally, that the very beginning of the associated graph at that link:
shows that the two month (red) trendline is coming up from what seems to have been extraordinarily low data points just prior. The data points are not even on the chart, but the trendline is there. These points would be, apparently, for October and November 1992.

That’s the timeframe used for the other graph to show the trend. I wonder what the numbers would have been had they used December to December comparisons. And is it likely that October 1992 was the very beginning of what would be the largest two-month rise on the chart?

Or is it more likely that there was some satellite settling-in going on, and they left that first data in for trend calculation, but did not actually show the points on the graph?

Chiefio and I both use charts in our work on a regular basis; that first trendline segment jumped out at me, and I imagine that it would to him as well.

I’ve done no serious work here; these are just the observations of a couple of minutes. It took more time to type this out. But since you put some stock in the graph, it seemed to warrant some thoughtful consideration. I’d enjoy seeing anyone’s further analysis of it.

And I’m going to use a name here rather than a moniker — something triggered by doing so accidentally on this blog a few weeks ago. But you’ll recognize some part of my signature, at least.